emotional

Let's imagine two scenarios which are compatible with the natural universe we see today:

1. The Big Bang is the act of divine creation. In the beginning God, and He initiated all processes of evolution, including the Darwinian one. There is a God, but His existence is hidden from us [at least while we're alive in this body]. He is the God of natural law, from which there is no deviation. Prayer to change things doesn't work.

2. The Big Bang was a natural result of quantum fluctuation. In the beginning were the particles. All the parameters necessary for evolution are inherent in the particles from the beginning onwards. Natural law is universal because ... that's all the universe has. The reason why natural law has no deviation, and why prayer doesn't work, is that there is no God.

How could we know? A universe with or without such a God would not be different, except perhaps for the possibility of an afterlife. The universe behaves exactly as if there were no God.

Are we to conclude that, since the universe behaves exactly as if there is no God, this is because there really is no God?

This argument from appearance, from divine hiddenness, is very powerful. I'm currently wavering between atheism and theism because of it. However, should we say that, because the earth has all appearance of being flat, then it is? The assumption of the earth flatness works most of the time, and it was not ousted until mankind began to consider the "big picture" (from the ancient Greeks onwards).

If there is such a God of natural law and theistic evolution, how can we rule out His existence? Occam's Razor? That's a principle of economy, but does it necessarily hint towards the truth?

What do you think? If the universe behaves as if there is no God, is this because there really is no God? Or is this a logical fallacy? Do you assume, "if it walks like a duck (etc) then it is a duck"? Or do you assume, "if the earth looks flat, it doesn't mean it's flat"?

(Note that the Abrahamic god of special intervention is excluded from the discussion, because the universe would be different than if he existed)

Viti

The deity you posit is irrelevant if it doesn't require worship or influence its creation. You could be a deist which doesn't exclude an afterlife which seems to be important to you.

The fact is we cannot know if such a deity exists and if the Universe behaves the same either way it is simply adding on an extra layer of "I don't know". My answer...if there is a deity it is irrelevent so I act as if there isn't one.

emotional

The discussion is not about whether such a deity is relevant or not. I agree such a deity is irrelevant. The discussion is about whether we can rule out His existence. Whether atheism or theism are justified, or whether only agnosticism is. Whether the appearance of "no God" is an argument for God's non-existence.

Viti

Of course we can't rule its existence out...I don't think I have ever met an atheist who asserted a deist concept of god is impossible. But, atheism is the default position until evidence is presented which demonstrates such a deity exists. Justification for not believing in something isn't necessary is it?

TiredJim

This is exactly why I don't know the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I thought atheism said there is no god, and anosticism said "who the hell knows? not me." But it seems everyone has their own definition.

rainbow walking

How do we know there can't be a case made for a natural after-life? Why is a deity required for this postulate? We know nothing more about any postulated after-life than we do a postulated god-created universe.

emotional

I'm not debating the afterlife now. The debate is whether the godless appearance of the universe is really best explained by postulating the non-existence of God.

Possibility 1: the reason why the universe has all the appearance of having no god over it is that there is really is no god. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it is a duck.

Possibility 2: the godless appearance of the universe is illusory. All it means is that God is hidden by the workings of natural law, not that He does not exist. If the earth appears flat, this is only an appearance; in the big picture we can the earth's flatness is illusory.

How do atheists come to decide on the first possibility?

Carol Massey

emotional,

here's an interview with Barbara Ehrenreich which you may find interesting. She wrote a book called Blood Rites that addresses the question you raise in this topic.

For me it is not a question of is there really a god, it is the recognition that we are not created in the image of a god; however, we create gods in our image. As we evolve, god evolves, and if we meet a catastrophic end, we have only ourselves to blame....not a creator god. We are the godstuff, and what we choose to do with it is up to us.

That is only my point of viewing it....nothing more.

Philosoft

No, but if your argument is inductive in nature, you might be able to conclude there probably is no God.

I don't understand your objection. Observations that were wholly inconsistent with a flat earth led to the rejection of flat-earth-theory. I could presume a flat earth and still drive from here to the supermarket, but I couldn't fly to London. Flat-earth-ism doesn't make it easier for me to get to the supermarket, and it's demonstrably wrong, so why should I ever employ it?

I think most of us are aware that it doesn't.

Yes, if your conclusion is, "Therefore, God doesn't exist."

I assume the former as a methodology, not as a metaphysic.

Normal

The "godless" apparence of the universe is clearly only a subjective conclusion.